[nos-bbs] State of packet and gateway traffic

[Barry Siegfried]

[MG <oilpan at optonline.net> wrote]:

> Well you certainly make it sound as though packet is really kicking
> over there to spite the apparent decrease in the number of gates,
> and yes, I've noticed how many folks overseas have ramped it up a
> notch or two in the speeds they are using... some very interesting
> stuff going on over there in certain places.

I think it is fascinating that most of the "high speed" development
has come from areas other than in the western hemisphere.

> When I wrote about research I didnt mean I was actually going to make
> some sort of written report or anything (although a few notes are
> inevitable) I just wanted to get a good handle on the state of packet
> activity here and abroad... Right now at the moment I am not able to
> use packet or voice for that matter because I had ALL my gear plus a
> few other things permanently borrowed from my car when I was moving...
> tragedy, so I'm waiting to find a good deal on a few things from E-bay
> or a hamfest... radio, TNC etc...

That *is* a tragedy and I'm sorry to hear that this happened to you.
Hopefully, you can get back on the air soon.

> Anyway... what I EVENTUALLY want to try is not really a gateway, (I
> don't know what you would call it) but use the XNOS system to let
> folks in the area gain access to the amprnet through a radio port
> (packet AX.25) and then from there be able to telnet to any gate
> and use their BBS or radio ports to other nearby stations, no mail,
> no bbs messages.

A machine functions as an "amprnet gateway" if IPIP is utilized to
directly tunnel 44-net packets to other machines in the world-wide
system of amprnet gateways.  It is immaterial what user services
(such as FTP, Telnet, SMTP, Convers, etc.) such a machine is actually
running or whether or not users can directly connect to it at all.
The only thing that is necessary to qualify a machine as an amprnet
gateway is whether or not a machine in a 44-net subnet behind it
has IP connectivity to a machine in a 44-net subnet behind another
gateway somewhere else using IPIP tunneled packets on the internet.
For these purposes, the 44-net IP address of the amprnet gateway
machine itself may be considered to be "behind" it and fully
participating in 44-net.

> As far as telnetting directly into NOS, I don't know about that,
> how can you be sure that a telnetter is a ham?, even if they have
> to register first, a person could just use a call book to "fake
> it"? although I know there are a lot of gates that allow it, I
> guess at some point I'll just get a consesus.

And when you communicate using voice or CW to some other individual
over amateur radio you can't be absolutely sure that person is who
they say they are either, correct?  If you are really security
conscious you could do what Echolink does and require that an
invidual fax a copy of his ticket to you.  To be reasonable,
however, at some point, you have to accept that callsign data is
valid.

The amprnet gateways which actually have a service that permits user
logins or packets to flow from non-ampr sources to ampr destinations
over the air generally have some sort of reasonable filtering installed
(such as callsign format validation for logins or "IP access" for
packet switching, respectively) to insure that individuals who are
unlicensed do not cause a local packet transceiver that is directly
under that gateway's "control" to transmit.

Also, it is perfectly legal for a licensed individual over the air
on the 44-net side of your amprnet gateway to access a non-ampr
destination through it and for that non-ampr destination to return
packets directly to him through it as long as he originates the
connection (i.e. is "in control" of it) and he is following all
other FCC rules with respect to the content of the data.

Quite honestly, my own experience is that our gateways and the
44-net machines behind them are rather boring to hackers and that
unlicensed individuals very rarely, if ever, try to penetrate them
for the purpose of causing packet transceivers to transmit.  It
would appear that doing their mischief on machines with actual
internet services on them is a lot faster and considerably "more
fun".

73, de Barry, K2MF >>
           o
          <|>      Barry Siegfried
+---------/-\---------------------------+
| Internet | bgs at mfnos.net              |
| HomePage | http://www.mfnos.net/~bgs  |
+----------+----------------------------+
| Amprnet  | k2mf at k2mf.ampr.org         |
| PBBS     | k2mf at k2ge.#cnj.nj.usa.noam |
+----------+----------------------------+